Gore soars on the ‘strangeness of our public discourse’

October 7, 2005

Like Ezra, I continue to be inspired by Al Gore’s vision and convictions. Say what you will about the former vice president, but when it comes to articulating exactly what’s gone wrong with American politics, the guy just keeps getting better. The latest gem was delivered Wednesday to a conference organized by “We Media” in New York.

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse … I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America’s fabled “marketplace of ideas” now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it’s almost as if America has entered “an alternate universe?”

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?

On the eve of the nation’s decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: “Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?”

It’s another brilliant speech, solidifying Gore’s growing stature as one of the leading progressive voices in the nation.

I know I’ve been linking to a lot of Gore’s speeches (about global warming, the political uses of fear, the truth someday rising again), but I’ll just say this: I’ll stop linking to them just as soon as Gore stops giving them.

I don’t think Al’s vision has ever been a problem–heck he was one of the only Senators back in the 80s complaining about the use of chemical/biological weapons by Saddam Hussein. If only Al had more judgment regarding those he surrounded himself with (eg. over-hyped pieces of rubbish–losers–like Donna Brazille) his career may have taken a different turn.

  • If only the Democrats would listen to him.

    Maybe he can’t do, but he sure can teach!

    Then again, maybe he can do. I wish
    he’d run again, but apparently his mind
    is made up.

  • Dead on Bubba. Al Gore is a great man who inexplicably allowed himself to be handled by mediocre ones. If he ran again, I’d try to figure out a way to vote 5 times.

  • Thanks for linking to the speech. Everything Gore says about TV is true, and has been true for four decades or more now, but as I read his speech, I was thinking, “but everything is changing, we have the internet”. Admittedly, he made almost the same point, but not until the end of the speech, although it obviated the need for much of the earlier two-thirds of the speech.

    I’ve been very impressed by Gore’s speeches in recent months, and it is illustrative that I wouldn’t have heard or read any of them at all (well, perhaps a sound bite on NPR) if it hadn’t been for the Internet. The internet is doing a better job of keeping me informed and of letting me try out ideas and test my arguments than anything I’ve experienced since discussions at college. I used to read political columnists and letters to the editor religiously, but nowadays I get a greater diversity of better opinions far more quickly by reading comments on blogs. (Bad ideas and false facts abound too, but the good stuff tends to shine through easily enough.)

    It is true that most people don’t read politics and other news on the internet, and that one can too easily restrict oneself to a very large community of people with opinions identical to one’s own. which has the capability of re-inforcement of extremist ideas that will dwarf the Rush Limbaugh dittohead phenomena. Nonetheless, I think we’ve barely begun to scratch the revolutionary and largely beneficial implications of the internet for democratic societies.

  • I love what Gore has been saying lately (i.e. starting with the day he endorsed Dean), but I just can’t get over a few things. Why, in 1988, did he run as the right-winger among the crowd? I’m troubled by his lack of consistency in being a Proud Progressive. Why, if he can be so funny (see Saturday Night Live skit in hot tub), bold, inspiring, articulate was he such a patently lousy candidate? After the debates with Bush, I had trouble getting excited about Gore — and I rabidly despise Bush. Why does he not only surround himself with people who have lousy advice for him (dress differently?) but also run from those who could truly be helpful? (i.e. throwing away the electoral gold of the Clinton-Gore 8-year run of prosperity, an economic record of unprecedented success).

    I like what he is saying, but he is just so damned frustrating on the whole.

  • His comments about the lack of public outrage about the use of torture particularly resonated with me. At the time the Abu Ghraib story first broke, I mentioned my sense of outrage over what was being perpetrated in my name. All my “politically aware” friends (many are not interested in the details of politics) could say was, “No, no, no, no. I don’t feel outrage.” That did it for me. Although we still are friends, my sense of alienation from them has not abated. Most of the time I refrain from discussing my point of view, because I am shouted down and labeled as an over-the-top “liberal lefty” if I deviate too far from the conventional wisdom (by calling Bush a liar about Social Security, for example). I hope Gore keeps talking, and that some how his message breaks through. However, many of the accounts I have read of his speech focused on his referal to “digital brown shirts.” I think that Nazi references are radioactive to potential listeners, and as a result the greater message may be lost.

  • Reading the speech you linked to, I could not help but think “This is the guy who should have won in 2000.” Oops, wait a minute, I forgot . . . he did. The real crime is that the other guy was sworn in instead.

  • zeitgeist, what Gore did in ’88 does not concern me in the slightest. The difference between then and today just show that he is an honest, thoughtful person who is capable of change in his views and ways.

  • Gore is a brilliant guy with a low level of retail political talent. That has not changed much since 2000.

    The speech was very good. But not politically. Ask yourselves, “how many Americans are thinking about the media this way?” I’d say about 1% or so. It’s not exactly something he can ride back on. Maybe energy policy….but not his cultural musings, however perceptive they may be.

  • The man should have been a college professor. He’s brilliant, and he’s great at TEACHING. I think he got into politics for the same reason Shrub did: he was following his Daddy. That was unfortunate. I love seeing Gore in his element, doing what he does best and what he clearly loves most: educating people.

    The 2000 election was all about two rich legacy kids who really should have been doing something else. Shrub should have owned a baseball team. Gore should have been a PoliSci professor.

    Gore definitely is a visionary. He’s no good as a politician: witness his ham-handed attempts at demogoguery (PMRC, anyone?) and pandering (the whole 2000 campaign).

  • I would really love to see Al Gore run in 2008. In fact, even if he would not mount a serious campaign, I would like to see him run on some third party ticket and withdrawal as the election approached (sort of like what Nadar should have done in 2000). Maybe he could raise the level of discourse and generate some favorable publicity for the wonkish left.

    I have no knowledge of the cost of such a campaign, but it seems like it could be done rather leisurely (he wouldn’t have to quit his day-job, so to speak).

    • Comments are closed.